Jump to content

Talk:Council communism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV

[edit]

I find this article a little bit POV. Could there not be a section for Marxist critiques of council communism or something?Lebob 02:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's probably space for something like that, if the critiques are encyclopedically notable in themself, much like Lenin's Infantile Communism which is in the article.Fifelfoo 03:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you should make a difference between left communism and council communism. I think KAPD was a party organisation, something council communist groups such as GIC criticized after KAPD's demise. Left communism was a historical link between Zimmerwald and council communism. AnttiR.

[edit]

I'm going to remove the two external links that have recently been added because, although the sites look interesting, they are not specifically council communist. The first one seems to be influenced by a whole range of left currents but is probably more anarchist/situationist than council communist. Certainly, there is no prominent exposition of specifically council communist ideas. The second site notes that it will endorse all leftists, from Trotsky to Stalin, so not very council communist at all... Mattley 12:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal rant

[edit]

I cannot help but express my opinion that Council communism would be just as doomed as the Bolshevik communism, judging what happens with trade unions: whatever democratic arganization you take, inevetably any coordination of activities requires a certain centralization, which immediately attracts people for whom power is narcotics. Further, once an organization is large enough, there comes a significant part of people with, say, less that strong political convictions, hence, easily manipulable. And voila, we have "democracy" of American kind... So the only options are either anarchism or progress of mass mankind towards something elusively good and brotherhoodish. Any kind of organization obeys to Parkinson's Law.

Concluding, it is really strange that there is no criticism of this equally utopic idea. Explanations are either heavy bias of editors of this page or marginality of this tendency, so that no one bothered to criticize. `'mikka 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wikipedia topic "Self-organization" about systems without hierarchies. Ants, termites`and bees were capable of it. Look at the ancient Attic Democracy to have a human example. Cuauti (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a matter of interpretation. If you presume that by coordination, governance is implied then it follows centralization would be an issue. However if you take coordination and in turn councils as treat it as a means by which standards of practice are established and industrial relations are created, then centralization would not be an issue. Furthermore the instantly recallable nature of the council system means that any person within a position of power (regardless of which interpretation you hold) is subject and responsible to a handful of his peers. Getting millions of people to reject their government as corrupt and then replace is it difficult; getting a workplace of people to rejec their representative as corrupt and replace him is not so difficult. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Your critique is really based on unprovable and simplistic assertions which have long been levelled at anarchism and received due response by anarchist writers. If you can come up with something more concrete and nuanced than "organizations inevitably get corrupt" then maybe you can put it in the article. TheEvilPanda 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Panda's remarks, and also think you should read some anarchist literature. Anarchists believe in a direct democracy, meaning that powerhungry types would also have to work as a laborer like anyone else. Also, any council would be composed of temporary delegates, who only govern on the council for a period, and only part-time at that. After deliberations, they would go back to work. Even while on the council, they would submit many decisions to a general vote of all workers. They would never become representative politicians, but only sub-commitee members like in the US congress, except the "Congress" would be every worker. Also, there would be no "apolitical" types since all workers would be part-time managers. Even if they spearhead policies as trivial as "more selections in the vending machine now!", they would still be active, not passive.72.78.177.33 (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Explanations are either heavy bias of editors of this page or marginality of this tendency, so that no one bothered to criticize." If the rebuttal is "Anarchists have already responded to this," then it looks like the latter explanation is the correct one.71.182.178.217 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a Marxist-Leninist could come by and assert some criticism. I think ol' man Lenin had some choice werds for libsoc tendencies in his work "Left Communism:an infantile disorder". Im sure that criticism would be surfice. But the power corrupts arguement sound invalid given the role of the deligates would most likely take on the nature of liaisons and not necessarly a leader or higher authority. But I guess one criticism is the lack of praxis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.102.253 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movements based on councils

[edit]

Am a bit skeptical about this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism#Contemporary_movements_organized_on_the_basis_of_councils Yes, these movements are based on councils, and they might in theory be inspiring to contemporary council communists, but are they really pertinent in this encyclopedia article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the four listed, only the Homeless Workers Movement comes close to being workers councils. The others are geographic. So, lacking in a link between Council Communism and their theory or Praxis, Seconding removal of section.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In absence of any defence, am going to remove.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Council Communism and the Soviets of the USSR

[edit]

The first paragraph of this section does not contain any citation to back itself. Even though I've seen this analysis in more than one course during my political science bachelor degree (from professors of different ideological inclination) and I personally beleive it to be true, every part of it has to supported by a credible citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.24.124 (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit

[edit]

I'm going to change the title of the section "Council Communism within the Soviet Union" to "Council Communism & the Soviet Union". Council Communism is a specific ideology with a particular philosophical formulation. Although yes, Councils are central to Council Communist philosophy and yes they were present within the USSR, I don't think its accurate to imply that Council Communism was at work within the USSR.Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization, Revisions, and Expansion

[edit]

After looking over this article I found it to be very redundant in some areas and very sparse of in others. I have made a series of edits to condense some of the material and in the future I will be looking to expand upon its content, particularly with the aim of establishing its relationship to other forms of Libertarian Socialism and fleshing out the ideological positions of Council Communism. At this point I recognize that further citations are needed (which I will add) and have added the appropriate tag. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Just a suggestion, but it seems appropriate to include Japanese "production control" as practiced in May 1945-August 1946 in this article. Pigchickencow (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates at the bottom match the flag of Germany

[edit]

Was it accidental that the current arrangement of templates were made to correspond to the flag of Germany? It looks nice and I've nothing against it, but just curious. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 25 Shevat 5774 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Council communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the Workers' Opposition having ties to the KAPD

[edit]

Hello, the last sentence of this paragraph is taken almost directly from the source it cites, specifically pages 146-147 of John Gerber's Anton Pannekoek and the Socialism of Workers' Self-Emancipation, 1873-1960, but said source lacks a citation for this offhand claim, and no source which corroborates the claim about there existing ties and ideological continuity appears in the references of Gerber's book or this article. As such, I think the last sentence should be removed, while the rest of the passage is fine, even if it leaves out Sylvia Pankhurst, who Gerber also lumps in with the "left communists".

The paragraph in question is as follows:

The German and Dutch left was part of a broader left communist movement that pushed back against the imposition of the Bolshevik model on Western Europe. In Vienna, Georg Lukács emphasized the importance of the spontaneity of the working class. In Italy, Amadeo Bordiga was opposed to electoral politics, but had little regard for councils as the basis for a reorganization of society and advocated vanguard parties as Lenin did. In Russia, the Workers' Opposition criticized the bureaucratization of working-class organizations and sympathized with the KAPD.[17]

And with my proposed edit:

The German and Dutch left was part of a broader left communist movement that pushed back against the imposition of the Bolshevik model on Western Europe. In Vienna, Georg Lukács emphasized the importance of the spontaneity of the working class. In Italy, Amadeo Bordiga was opposed to electoral politics, but had little regard for councils as the basis for a reorganization of society and advocated vanguard parties as Lenin did. [17]

Thank you. Lazer Raptor (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Bolshevik Communism" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-Bolshevik Communism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Anti-Bolshevik Communism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Council_communism&oldid=1200358964"